You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient

.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

No it's valid for Mind Only that posits the ultimately existing mind as well. As Tamdrin points out in a later posting this will not result in full enlightenment but can establish one on the bhumis. So it can get people started on tantra and can even result in the bhumis but it is incomplete and insufficient for full enlightenment. In Sakya in particular it is basically treated as a provisional view (as are all views lower than Madhyamaka).

In comparison the lower schools view of Sautantrika and Vaihasika is not sufficient for one to begin tantric practice, even kriya yoga tantra. However I think Tsongkhapa suggests that kriya yoga practice can begin with a lower view (I think this is in HHDL's commentary in "Tantra in Tibet" but I can't look that up). In practice some view of emptiness is better than none (unless it's too far off and is nihilistic).

Kirt

Last edited by kirtu on Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)[/quote]This is one of the many interesting features of the Gongchig. At first its a bit of a head scratcher but in the context of the commentary it is a pretty good argument.[/quote]

Hi Nangwa,Yes it is an interesting text. I have parts of several translations and I think one commentary.. Whose commentary did you have Khenpo Tsultrim?

You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient

.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

No it's valid for Mind Only that posits the ultimately existing mind as well. As Tamdrin points out in a later posting this will not result in full enlightenment but can establish one on the bhumis. So it can get people started on tantra and can even result in the bhumis but it is incomplete and insufficient for full enlightenment. In Sakya in particular it is basically treated as a provisional view (as are all views lower than Madhyamaka).

In comparison the lower schools view of Sautantrika and Vaihasika is not sufficient for one to begin tantric practice, even kriya yoga tantra. However I think Tsongkhapa suggests that kriya yoga practice can begin with a lower view (I think this is in HHDL's commentary in "Tantra in Tibet" but I can't look that up). In practice some view of emptiness is better than none (unless it's too far off and is nihilistic).

Kirt

It seems that this discussion is somewhat theoretical, although interesting, practically speaking how is holding the mind only view going to allow one to reach onto the Bhumi's? I assume that it is this insight combined with rigorous practice?

tamdrin wrote:According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)

This is one of the many interesting features of the Gongchig. At first its a bit of a head scratcher but in the context of the commentary it is a pretty good argument.[/quote]

Hi Nangwa,Yes it is an interesting text. I have parts of several translations and I think one commentary.. Whose commentary did you have Khenpo Tsultrim?[/quote]I have the a translation of an old commentary. I cant remember the lama's name from memory, he was in same way a relative of Jigme Lingpa, nephew maybe.There is a new translation of the root text coming out in the Mahamudra volume of the Library of Tibetan Classics. Should be out in a few weeks.

tamdrin wrote:According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)

This is one of the many interesting features of the Gongchig. At first its a bit of a head scratcher but in the context of the commentary it is a pretty good argument.

Hi Nangwa,Yes it is an interesting text. I have parts of several translations and I think one commentary.. Whose commentary did you have Khenpo Tsultrim?[/quote]I have the a translation of an old commentary. I cant remember the lama's name from memory, he was in same way a relative of Jigme Lingpa, nephew maybe.There is a new translation of the root text coming out in the Mahamudra volume of the Library of Tibetan Classics. Should be out in a few weeks.[/quote]

I believe that one of the Drikung throne holders was Jigmed Lingpa's son...

tamdrin wrote:According to the Drikung Kagyu lineage, the mind only school of thought will get you to the 7th Bhumi, no farther (but hey thats not bad right? 7th bhumi woohoo!)

This is one of the many interesting features of the Gongchig. At first its a bit of a head scratcher but in the context of the commentary it is a pretty good argument.

Hi Nangwa,Yes it is an interesting text. I have parts of several translations and I think one commentary.. Whose commentary did you have Khenpo Tsultrim?

I have the a translation of an old commentary. I cant remember the lama's name from memory, he was in same way a relative of Jigme Lingpa, nephew maybe.There is a new translation of the root text coming out in the Mahamudra volume of the Library of Tibetan Classics. Should be out in a few weeks.[/quote]

I believe that one of the Drikung throne holders was Jigmed Lingpa's son...[/quote]Yeah, cant remember which one though.

conebeckham wrote:That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

No it's valid for Mind Only that posits the ultimately existing mind as well. As Tamdrin points out in a later posting this will not result in full enlightenment but can establish one on the bhumis. So it can get people started on tantra and can even result in the bhumis but it is incomplete and insufficient for full enlightenment. In Sakya in particular it is basically treated as a provisional view (as are all views lower than Madhyamaka).

In comparison the lower schools view of Sautantrika and Vaihasika is not sufficient for one to begin tantric practice, even kriya yoga tantra. However I think Tsongkhapa suggests that kriya yoga practice can begin with a lower view (I think this is in HHDL's commentary in "Tantra in Tibet" but I can't look that up). In practice some view of emptiness is better than none (unless it's too far off and is nihilistic).

It seems that this discussion is somewhat theoretical, although interesting, practically speaking how is holding the mind only view going to allow one to reach onto the Bhumi's? I assume that it is this insight combined with rigorous practice?

I don't know for sure because all the teachers emphasize the Madhyamaka. So details on this point are few. However I doubt that if one truly held the mind to be ultimately existing that this would be the case. However if one realized that the mind were empty and that all manifestations ultimately stemmed from the mind but that these manifestations were dependent upon previous karma then it would be possible even if it would not be a Madhyamaka view. So one could hold a form of Mind Only where there is some understanding that the mind creates the world we experience via the ripening of karmic seeds and that the mind needs to be purified and that the mind goes from sentient form to sentient form and still attain the bhumis. At this point though I think different lineages will assert different things (the view is dropped before one realizes emptiness directly could be one position for example).

Since everyone asserts the Madhyamaka then no one really details how this might happen. But Asanga is asserted to have attained the 2nd bhumi with the Mind Only view for example. Ironically Tsongkhapa did write about this to some extent in his "The Essence of Eloquence" translated by Hopkins as "Emptiness in the Mind Only School" but I have never made much headway in that text. Even in the foundational Sakya pre-Lamrim text "The Beautiful Ornament of the Three Visions", by Ngorchen Konchog Lhundrub introduction to Vajrayana comes after the Madhyamaka view is explained and that text is intended as a progressive meditation manual. So one would have been familiar with Madhyamaka before introduction to Vajayana in that curriculum.

Kirt

Last edited by kirtu on Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It seems that this discussion is somewhat theoretical, although interesting, practically speaking how is holding the mind only view going to allow one to reach onto the Bhumi's? I assume that it is this insight combined with rigorous practice?[/quote]

I don't know for sure because all the teachers emphasize the Madhyamaka. So details on this point are few. However I doubt that if one truly held the mind to be ultimately existing that this would be the case. However if one realized that the mind were empty and that all manifestations ultimately stemmed from the mind but that these manifestations were dependent upon previous karma then it would be possible even if it would not be a Madhyamaka view. So one could hold a form of Mind Only where there is some understanding that the mind creates the world we experience via the ripening of karmic seeds and that the mind needs to be purified and that the mind goes from sentient form to sentient form and still attain the bhumis. At this point though I think different lineages will assert different things (the view is dropped before one realizes emptiness directly could be one position for example).

Since everyone asserts the Madhyamaka then no one really details how this might happen. But Asanga is asserted to have attained the 2nd bhumi with the Mind Only view for example. Ironically Tsongkhapa did write about this to some extent in his "The Essence of Eloquence" translated by Hopkins as "Emptiness in the Mind Only School" but I have never made much headway in that text.

Kirt[/quote]Yeah but this doesn't really answer my question.. How does holding any kind of view become the cause of attaining any supermundane realization? It would seem to me that it would have been practice that caused this. Wasn't Asanga the one that meditated in the cave for 12 years waiting for Maitreya to come?

tamdrin wrote:Yeah but this doesn't really answer my question.. How does holding any kind of view become the cause of attaining any supermundane realization? It would seem to me that it would have been practice that caused this. Wasn't Asanga the one that meditated in the cave for 12 years waiting for Maitreya to come?

Asanga was the guy who practiced for 12 years in a cave on Maitreya and after finally encountering Maitreya face to face wrote down his teachings. Maitreya is the source of the elaboration of the Mind Only teachings with Shakyamuni the source of the Mind Only school.

Just holding the view doesn't do much. One has to practice. Now the practice might only be engaged contemplation - that's practice (so practice doesn't have to be a sadhana). But after learning, contemplation and meditation then insight arises. Insight can arise in the lower views too but view limits the insight that can arise.

Actually bringing this back to dzogchen - Padmasambhava wrote in - I can't find the text or remember it's title right now - about all the lower schools beginning with non-Buddhist schools and going all the way up to Mahayoga and Anuyoga tantra in terms of their obscurations.

tamdrin wrote:Yeah but this doesn't really answer my question.. How does holding any kind of view become the cause of attaining any supermundane realization? It would seem to me that it would have been practice that caused this. Wasn't Asanga the one that meditated in the cave for 12 years waiting for Maitreya to come?

Asanga was the guy who practiced for 12 years in a cave on Maitreya and after finally encountering Maitreya face to face wrote down his teachings. Maitreya is the source of the elaboration of the Mind Only teachings with Shakyamuni the source of the Mind Only school.

Just holding the view doesn't do much. One has to practice. Now the practice might only be engaged contemplation - that's practice (so practice doesn't have to be a sadhana). But after learning, contemplation and meditation then insight arises. Insight can arise in the lower views too but view limits the insight that can arise.

Actually bringing this back to dzogchen - Padmasambhava wrote in - I can't find the text or remember it's title right now - about all the lower schools beginning with non-Buddhist schools and going all the way up to Mahayoga and Anuyoga tantra in terms of their obscurations.

Kirt

Cool, Was it the "garland of views" attributed to Padmasambhava that you were thinking about?

kirtu wrote:Actually bringing this back to dzogchen - Padmasambhava wrote in - I can't find the text or remember it's title right now - about all the lower schools beginning with non-Buddhist schools and going all the way up to Mahayoga and Anuyoga tantra in terms of their obscurations.

Cool, Was it the "garland of views" attributed to Padmasambhava that you were thinking about?

I'm thinking it is "Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness" but I'd like to confirm it.

kirtu wrote:You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient

.

BUT - the Gelug position is that one needs an understanding of emptiness according to the Prasangika view - this is asserted in Koeppl's translation of Rongzom in "Establishing Appearances as Divine" : pg 33:

The Nyingma notion of a superior view of Mantra contrasts sharply with Tsongkhapa, who consistently argues that the view of Mantra is nothing but Prasangika[100]

Koeppl goes on to cite Tsongkhapa's "The Stages of Mantra" and asserts that Khedrup Je also asserts that all of Tantra is Prasangika.

So on this point one would assume that for the Gelug Yogacara/Cittamatra is insufficient even for entry into tantra, even lower tantra.

Kirt

[100] Although Tsongkhapa often empasizes [sic] that the view of Tantra is nothing but Madhyamaka, he nevertheless also suggests that the subject realizing emptiness is different from the Sutrayana subject in that realization. Tsongkhapa describes the subject in the esoteric context as great bliss (bde ba chen po, mahasukha). See for instance Komarovski (2000):73, n.103.